So you are saying that after 9/11 it makes more sense for countries like China, Saudi Arabia and Dubai to own our debt and our companies?
Huh. I would have thought that'd make us less safer.
Who are you thinking of voting for in 2008?
- Thread starter dmclone
- Start date
So you are saying that after 9/11 it makes more sense for countries like China, Saudi Arabia and Dubai to own our debt and our companies?
Huh. I would have thought that'd make us less safer.
Good point. The other part of that issue is the fact Bush has had to rebuild several aspects of government that were ignored and left to die during dark years of the Clinton presdiency (ie CIA, NSA and the military). The whole 9-11 / Afghanistan / Iraq issue may have never happened had the previous administration been more concerned with international threats.
Fred Thompson all of the way!
I was watching Glen Beck on Headline News 6 months ago when on my honeymoon (ok, I know you're saying "what are you doing wasting your time watching CNN on your honeymoon, but my wife was in the shower, and when you're in Mexico and the only English programming is MTV, some outdated TV show I'd rather not watch, and CNN, well, you know...), and he was basically arguing the liberals' viewpoint of how Bush's economic "tax-cut" policy has us 260 billion in the red. Beck then said liberals are not painting the true picture, because after giving the tax cuts a full year to work, the deficit was actually down something like 200%. This is because people had more money to spend at the stores, which grew the economy, which increased the amount of money that businesses could be taxed, giving the government more money. Beck further said the media would never report something like that because they then would look hypocritical for criticizing Bush's tax-cut policies.
Anyone who thinks that the tax cuts are not working and are bad for the economy needs to actually look at the economy. Unemployment is under 5%. The Dow Jones is at record highs. Yes, oil prices are through the roof, but if that's what you're comparing the economy on, adjusted for inflation gas prices are comparable to what they were before the energy crisis in the mid 70s. I know there are a lot of people that say that Clinton had this great economic policy and the economy grew like crazy under him, but people forgot one thing - he got incredibly lucky. What do I mean? The internet and E-commerce skyrocketed under Clinton's watch, and collapsed just as Bush was taking over. So basically, you could say that Bush's economic policies have been successful in spite of the collapse of E-commerce and 9/11.
Do I support Bush? Not 100%. Iraq and Afghanistan could have been handled much better than it has been. If not for for Iraq, we could be focusing on the REAL problems - North Korea and Iran. But Bush has done well for the hand that has been dealt to him. I know a lot of people now are calling him "the worst President ever," but 25 years from now I highly doubt that will be his legacy (weren't people calling Nixon that a long time ago?).
Excellent post Jdogg. Those are my thoughts exactly. Am I better off than I was 4 and 8 years ago? Hell yeah I am. Investments are way up, pay rate is up, taxes are lower, the economy is kicking...
Gas prices are higher, but the fed has nothing to do with that, it is all the evil gas companies! I read that on the intraweb so it must be true.
While I do not agree 100% that iraq is going well, I am not sure any of the dems have a plan that will result in anything other than a civil war there, which would be won by the same people that are causing all the problems now. And then where are we? Right back where we started.
I am voting for McCain, the guy is nuts, but at least he has some balls.
Gas prices are higher, but the fed has nothing to do with that, it is all the evil gas companies! I read that on the intraweb so it must be true.
While I do not agree 100% that iraq is going well, I am not sure any of the dems have a plan that will result in anything other than a civil war there, which would be won by the same people that are causing all the problems now. And then where are we? Right back where we started.
I am voting for McCain, the guy is nuts, but at least he has some balls.
I'd take these rankings with a grain of salt. Here is what I know, Ron Paul has never voted for a tax increase. NEVER.
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
Sounds like my guy.
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
Sounds like my guy.
That right there is enough for me. That is the single biggest move backwards in the history of this country. I am in!
This has got to be a joke, right? You can't seriously be blaming the President for your mother's pay and your fiance's job situation, can you?
I didn't like Clinton's positions on many policy issues and I absolutely despised his total lack of morals and ethics but guess what...I did quite fine in my career during his eight years because the person who is President does not determing my success...I determine my own success!
You and your family need to take responsibility for your lives and quit blaming others...I would suggest reading a book called "The Secret".
I absolutely do not agree with other countries buying up our debt. If we cut out all the liberal give away programs, we wouldn't need to borrow money to have a strong military,now would we?:frown3qg:
I encourage you to do a little research as to how Edwards made his money. Frankly, I don't begrudge him for it because he is just taking advantage of the system. However, the system needs reform...the litigiousness of our society is costing all of us a tremendous amount. In my business, we typically make less than 5%...however, lawyers often take cases on contingency where they get 40-50% of the compensatory damages. The moral of the story is we have a system that has been perverted and led us to the point today that a lot of people won't even have a birthday party at their home for fear of someone getting hurt and suing...CRAZY!
I say we send Greenpeace over to China and let them talk with their leaders...I'm sure they would be welcomed with open arms!! Or maybe we should invade China and start the "War of Pollution"?? I'm sure either of these solutions would work!!
(End sarcasm)
You obviously don't understand that the US is the cleanest, most environmentally friendly nation in the world...but it is!!
Absolutely the tax cuts are working (and we need more)!
By the way...you probably paid more per gallon for your bottle of water at the convenience store than you did for your gas...those evil, wicked soft drink companies!!!!!!
We are only the world's biggest polluter because our GDP dwarfs other countries. If divided up by GDP, we are one of the cleanest. All the regulations will do is push companies to relocate to countries with even lower standards than we have now. See what Europe is currently going through as a fine example.
I think you were being sarcastic here but if the state and federal taxes on gasoline were repealed today, depending on the state you reside in, your gas price would drop 40 to 60 cents a gallon. Frankly, government makes more than the oil companies and more than the independent dealers on the sale of gasoline.
If your lawyer charges that much you need a new lawyer. It is typically 1/3 for a case that goes to a verdict, less if they settle prior to that. You also need to realize that lawyers who take cases on a contingent fee are taking the risk of getting nothing if they lose the case. Losing one major case means that a lawyer has invested major time and resources and gotten nothing. The major advantage of a contingent fee system is that it allows people who could not otherwise afford to bring a suit to do so.
Considering that the runners aren't even close to being decided yet, this is a tad premature. However, most likely I'll be voting for some third-party candidate who is less of an idiot as the two major party candidates are likely to be. We have over an entire year of debates to listen to, as well as a lot of research that each voter should do (which 90% won't do) to decide the best candidate for the job and not the candidate who is the lessor of the two evils (Dems and Repubs)
If I remember correctly, the lawyers fees in the Iowa/Microsoft were $79.5 million with a settlement of $179.9 million or about 44%. $79.5 million in legal "fees"...uh huh. :rolleyes5cz:
